Unimagined

A wild(er) day!

A wild(er) day!

I was called by the BBC on my mobile phone at 2:30 pm and agreed to come immediately to Television Centre to do a pre-recorded spot for 6 pm.  (I was so glad I shaved this morning.)  I thought this was for the main news at 6 pm and would be in the studio.  I was happy it was going to be pre-recorded – live television scares me.

 

I sat in the lobby and watched Dev Patel (star of Slumdog Millionaire) walk in with his family.  They have to keep an eye him, I suppose – keep the girls away.  

 

The producer came down and took me, not to the studio as I expected, but to the Blue Peter garden, and a cameraman came out and set-up quickly.  The background was a bush and it started to snow.  The producer stayed off camera, holding the mic, and asked me a few questions, to which my answers had to be self-explanatory (ie the viewer would not hear the questions).  I wondered if this was not for the main News, but for some local thing that no-one watches – hence the use of a bush in the Blue Peter garden as background.  I was disappointed.

 

However, the producer liked my answers and, as the snow fell, he called someone on his mobile phone.  There was talk of Newsnight, but apparently they already had some regular players lined up for that.  However, he took me back inside, asked me to wait in the lobby again, and went away for a while.  Eventually, he came back with another producer and they said they couldn’t promise anything, but would I mind waiting in the Green Room, and they would see what they could do.

 

In the Green Room I met a man from Lloyds who insures satellites and a woman who works as a dating consultant.  Then the host of the Green Room – a delightful young lady determined to make her career in media and cheerfully working her way up with dignity – looked at her screen and said to me: ‘Looks like they’ve got you down for the News at 7:04’. 

 

Live, it was going to be live in the studio!  I watched the News start from the Green Room at 7:00 and they came to get me at 7:01. 

  

It was Tim Wilcox and Sophie Long, sitting in a large room with screens and automated cameras, but no people except myself and the gentleman who brought me in, standing to one side.

   

He sat me down next to beautiful Sophie at the appropriate moment. 

  

They allowed me to speak at length and I was able to make the following points.  This is more or less what I said, in response to Sophie’s questions. 

  

‘Mr Wilders is an EU citizen and he has the right of freedom of movement around the European Union, as well as the right of freedom of speech, which we all have.

  

The Government’s move to ban his entry into this country has reinforced the perception that Muslims use bullying tactics and threats of violence to suppress free speech.  This is completely the wrong message to send. 

 

Muslims already have a terrible PR problem, and this has just made things worse.  

 

The correct Muslim reaction should have been no reaction.  Let him come, show his film and go about this business, without Muslims making a fuss.  This response of banning him has merely reinforced all the negative stereotypes about Muslims being violent and unreasonable.

  

I have seen the film and it is truly awful.  It’s completely unbalanced and it serves no positive purpose.  Its intention is to provoke anger and hatred. 

  

Let me explain to you with a simple analogy what Mr Wilders has done.  I know that Judaism is a religion of peace and spirituality.  That’s a fact.  I know many Jewish people who are peaceful and spiritual.  But if someone made a film showing what the Israeli army just did in Gaza, and played against it a soundtrack of some of the difficult verses from the Old Testament … instructing to ‘enter this township and slay every man, woman and child’ … that would be a hideous distortion of what Judaism is, it would be grossly unfair and utterly immoral, there would be an outcry … no-one would be stupid enough to do this … but that is exactly what Mr Wilders has done … but because it’s about Islam, he knows he can get away with it. 

  

The correct response should be calm communication … respectful dialogue.  I would like to sit down with Mr Wilders and have a respectful conversation with him. 

  

I sent him a Dutch copy of my book a year ago, but he never replied.’

 

Apparently it was repeated at 10 pm

.   My title on screen was ‘Imran Ahmed (sic) – British Muslims for Secular Democracy’.

   

UK: www.unimagined.co.uk

US: www.unimagined.org

Public Speaking: www.unimagined.biz

    

The Sharia Hysteria

Let’s establish some baseline principles, before I get to the matter in hand.

 

There is no such thing as ‘Sharia’ law – as a body of unambiguous, Quran-based legislation which provides a clear code by which we might live, arbitrate, judge and punish.  ‘Sharia’ law is just the local law which has built up over time in various places, based on various interpretations, traditions, rulings, prejudices, good intentions, bigotry and spite.  It varies from place to place and there is nothing particularly Islamic about it, other than that this term ‘Sharia’ (which is not in the Quran) has been adopted wherever the society is predominantly Muslim.

 

Now, a lot of Muslims don’t know this, especially the uneducated ones who come from the most barbaric places, but even some who should know better.  They think that ‘Sharia’ is some uniform code of justice which is sourced from the Quran – but it isn’t.  It varies from tribe to tribe, region to region, so it can’t be sacred and authentic – it is very much of this world and deeply tainted by local cultural beliefs and prejudices.

   

For example, many people believe that the Islamic punishment for adultery is stoning to death.  If non-Muslims believe this, I don’t blame them – it’s what they see taking place in so-called Islamic countries: Iran, Afghanistan (under the Taliban), parts of Nigeria. 

   

But so-called Muslims who believe this – and practise it – have absolutely no excuse.  Nowhere in the Quran is stoning to death authorised as a punishment for anything.  For the record, the Quranic punishment for adultery is 100 lashes.  The Biblical punishment for adultery is stoning to death (also for being a drunkard, or gathering firewood on the Sabbath).  In the 8^th and 9^th centuries, some bigoted men riding on the wave of the new Islam movement decided that the Quran was actually too liberal and too progressive and too lenient towards women (who are inherently wayward), and that even though Allah said clearly and unambiguously that the punishment for adultery was 100 lashes, what He really meant was stoning to death. 

 

Any Muslim who maintains that stoning to death is a legitimate Islamic punishment should be required to show where this is written in the Quran and, if they can’t demonstrate it, they should be … um … stoned to death … I think, why not?

 

The Quran actually says something along the lines of: “Woe unto them who make things up, and then say: ‘This is from God’.’”

   

As I said, ‘Sharia’ law is just a body of traditional law which has built up in various places, and it differs from place to place.  But, if ‘Sharia’ is the local law, then the ‘Common Law’ which we have in this country is, in effect, our ‘Sharia’.  And the ‘law of the land’ is the law we should all live by.  Some Muslims seem to think that anything which originates from a hot, dusty place is somehow authentically Islamic, and that which is formulated in a cold, damp place cannot be compatible with Islam.  Well, it’s an old cliché, but if they prefer hot, dusty places, they are free to return there.

   

So, to make it absolutely clear, I certainly wouldn’t want inconsistent, barbaric traditional law from some primitive, hot, dusty place imposed on anyone in this country.

   

Now, this is where I change tack and defend the Archbishop.

   

He never said that which he has been accusing of saying, that which has generated all this hysteria. He never advocated that there should be parallel systems of law in this country, and that Muslims could opt out of the ‘law of the land’ and have their own system. 

 

What he was referring to was the arbitration of disputes and the giving of advice in personal matters – where all parties involved are willing to follow the advice of a mutually agreed ‘authority’, without having to engage the legal machinery of the state. 

 

Everyone already has this right. 

   

If you have a dispute with someone, and you agree that you will have someone arbitrate the dispute, and everyone involved is happy with this process, then you are free to do so without engaging lawyers and courts.  It only works if everyone agrees, and the proposed decision is not illegal – not against the ‘law of the land’. If just one party doesn’t agree, or they aren’t happy with the proposed resolution, then that individual can drag the legal system into the matter and everyone gets sucked in, whether they like it or not. 

   

Similarly, you might have a moral dilemma, and you might seek the advice of your priest.  Perhaps you have children from different marriages, and you want advice on how you should divide your estate – on what arrangement would be most ethical and fair.  The State does not interfere in this advice, but it does recognise the Will which you subsequently make based upon the advice – as long as it’s not illegal.

   

The Jewish community already has a system of courts which arbitrate disputes and give advice in personal matters according to Jewish law.  This is private arbitration and advice, and it’s voluntary.  No Jewish person is obliged to follow this route, and the State can be engaged if necessary.  But if, as a matter of personal conscience, they are willing to follow the judgements or advice handed out by such an authority, they are free to do so.

   

Anyone can go to a friend or mentor for advice, or have a third party arbitrate a dispute, without having to drag lawyers into it, if the other party agrees to this process.

   

So, if Muslims wants to go to a medieval mullah for advice on what God would do, they actually currently have that right. 

 

The Archbishop was suggesting that Muslims might want to establish more formal ‘authorities’, like the Jewish ones, which arbitrate and give advice in such personal matters.  But they would be purely voluntary and cannot supersede the ‘law of the land’.

   

A few idiot Muslims have gotten hold of the wrong end of the stick, and excitedly believe that the Archbishop was endorsing their perceived right to live under their primitive home country traditions, and completely opt out of the UK’s system of justice (whilst enjoying all the other rights and privileges of being here).  I can understand they might think this, because they are not well educated and don’t understand English very well, and the parts of their brains controlling rationality have seized up through lack of activity.

   

But the media and others have no excuse.

   

The Archbishop never suggested that there should be parallel systems of justice, that ‘Sharia’ law – with all of its inconsistency and barbarity – should be introduced in Britain, and that Muslims could opt out of the ‘law of the land’.  He was referring only to private arbitration of personal matters, on an entirely voluntary and consensual basis, and within the framework of the common law.

   

Much more worrying is how this issue – not a particularly complex one – has been so distorted in this media feeding frenzy. 

   

The Archbishop has been completely stunned by the response to his comments.  He underestimated how vicious and deceitful the media can be, and how quickly people can become hysterical and irrational if the right hot buttons are pushed. 

 

‘ARCHBISHOP SUPPORTS SHARIA LAW IN BRITAIN'  pushes all the hottest buttons.

 

Think about it.  The Archbishop is not a stupid man.  He was good at everything in school except sport.  Really it was more like:

   

'ARCHBISHOP RECOGNISES PERSONAL ARBITRATION LIKE WE ALREADY HAVE.'

 

'MUSLIMS WANT OPTIONS THEY (AND EVERYONE ELSE) ALREADY HAVE.' 

   

   

Woe unto them who make things up, and say: “This came from the Archbishop.”

   

They should be … um… stoned to death?

   

 

,

 

Imran Ahmad (who?) at the Cambridge Union Society

Last Thursday evening, I addressed the Cambridge Union Society.  To receive this invitation was a tremendous honour – I could never have imagined it a year ago. 

 

I finally bought a dinner suit, from Savoy Tailor’s Guild on Strand, right by my office.  The one I chose had a perfect lapel shape, was made of pure, light wool and had a very smart cut. The only issue is that it did not have double vents.  I actually hate a single vent; I think a double looks much smarter, but to get a double I would have had to upgrade to a Hugo Boss for an additional £200, and that’s a lot to pay for a cut in the fabric.

 

At my hotel in Cambridge, I shaved, showered and dressed, critically eyeing myself in the mirror – in my black dinner suit and black bow tie. (If you have read Unimagined, you will know what kind of excited feelings this evoked.) 

 

I thought the dinner before the debate would be a sombre affair, with stuffy old men, but it was remarkably relaxed.  It gradually dawned on me that students are actually rather young, and the stuffy old man would be me.

   

In the Chamber of the Cambridge Union, I received a wonderful and very warm reception, which put me into a state of almost surreal joy. 

   

The motion was, “This House would keep God separate from the State” and I was the primary speaker in favour of the motion.  (Originally, the motion had been “This House would not let religion control the State” – which I thought would be a walkover – but in the morning I heard it had been changed at the insistence of the main opposing speaker.)

 

I used two examples of religions, some of whose adherents seek to drag God into the machinery of the state: Islam and Christianity.

   

For Islam, I pointed out that our evidence is contemporary, using the examples of Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan under the Taliban.  These are three different examples of people interpreting the will of God and acting on His behalf, but all resulting in dark societies where the human spirit is stifled.

   

For Christianity, I argued that we are fortunate that our strongest evidence is historical – that European history is actually a journey towards Enlightenment, and that many people had suffered over many centuries (the Spanish Inquisition, the burning of heretics, the drowning of witches etc), that we might have Liberty today.  I said that freedom of thought and freedom of expression were precious rights – which we took for granted at our own peril.

   

I emphasised that I have nothing against people holding religious views and values, but that the machinery of the State should be based solely on reason, equality and justice, and that it should be transparent and accessible to all.

 

My closing remarks went like this (reproduced from my notes):

 

“I once again refer to those who died for our freedom.  We cannot throw away their courage, their suffering, their sacrifice – that we might live in the Light of Reason and Liberty. To those who would have us live once again in ignorance, darkness, bigotry and fear, I say only this: ‘I hope and pray that, one day, ye shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free!’”

    

The main speaker opposing the motion was Stephen Green, the head of Christian Voice.  One of his arguments was that if we kept ‘God’ out of the State, then ‘Allah’ would soon take over. 

 

During his speech, several members of the audience asked him to focus on the actual motion.

 

We won the debate by 109 votes to 15. 

   

Afterwards, as I strode out of the Cambridge Union Society building, I had to walk by a group of students milling about.  One commented, “He has the right lapels on his dinner jacket.”  Bolstered by this, I swaggered past them, only to hear from behind, “But the single vent does rather spoil it.”

   

I sulked back to my hotel. 

   

   

       

British Muslims for Secular Democracy

I am a Trustee of British Muslims for Secular Democracy, which is a recently formed and diverse group, with the following aims:

                        

• to get Muslims properly engaged in the democratic process;
• to counter the prevalent negative stereotype of Muslims;
• to break the destructive stranglehold which the lunatics (helped by some in the media) seem to have on the image, identity and psyche of the Muslim communities;
• to ensure that theology does not stifle education and democracy; 
• to ensure that no individual, group or gender has any theological or regressive cultural values imposed upon them.

                                 

The website is www.bmsd.org.uk